Public Bill Committee

[Mr. David Amessin the Chair]

Clause 85

EPBs and their areas

Question (16 June) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Amess: Good morning, on this wonderful summer day. If hon. Members want to remove their jackets to feel comfortable, they may do so.

David Curry: I am delighted that we have all arrived in good order, at the right time and in the right place. Some of our constituents would no doubt find that a signal achievement.
We are now coming to provisions in the Bill that are, on the whole, helpful and sensible. The measures envisaged are not compulsory for local authorities, and their design is significantly left to those authorities, so we are moving away from the very prescriptive elements of the Bill. I am more comfortable with that. We should, however, recognise how complex the landscape that we are designing is.
If people were to take advantage of the opportunities presented by everything in the Bill, the landscape of power and authority in the regions would have the regional strategy at the top. Then there would be the two key elementsthe leaders board and the regional development agency; a constellation of subsidiary, advisory so-called stakeholder bodies serving those; and the multi-area agreements, with or without statutory powers, or with or without attitude, as one might put it. Local area agreements would persist as well. There would be the economic prosperity boards, which might well incorporate transport bodies; there would be the Leeds and Manchester pilots, which might eventually lead to a more coherent form of city region; and underneath there would be the local authorities. Leaving London aside, those include the unitaries, the metropolitans, the districts and the counties, so they are quite a constellation. When I look at that landscape, it isnt half complicated.
That gives rise to two issues. The first, and perhaps the minor one, is that I suspect what is happening is a bit of a recipe for the empowerment of officers. Many councillors would find it difficult to find their way through, and that would put a huge amount of power in the hands of the officers who will be riding shotgun on the new system.
Secondly, there is a question of accountability. We can see the common sense in multi-area agreements, but the bodies involved are, to a significant extent, not accountable. It is easy to see a logic when that is all put together, but if the question is turned around and things are looked at through the other end of the telescope, by asking how the citizen relates, finds a way in, or finds a voice, it is quite difficult. I do not think we have cracked the central issue of how to build in accountability to structures that are not accountable at a classical national or local level, but which sit between those levels. We still need to deal with that.
A lot of the clauses refer to the tutelage of the Secretary of State. That is inevitable and inescapable, for two reasons: first, because local government still functions significantly on money that is voted by the taxpayer at national levelthe grants to local authorities are still a significant part of their funding; and secondly because local government bodies carry out statutory duties, and, indeed, some of the proposals will enhance those. Therefore it is inescapable that the Secretary of State should be the ultimate accounting power in relation to delivery by those statutory bodies. I hope that we shall not get too hung up on that, because I venture to doubt whether, if a future Governmentperhaps of a different complexion from the present onewere to put forward measures in this context, the relevant part of the architecture would be significantly different.
I am sorry if I have been giving a sort of Second Reading speech, but, as we are about to discuss economic prosperity boards, I think they must be seen in the context of the extraordinarily complex and, in a sense, quite confusing structures that are likely to be created. We must ask ourselves who will manage them and how, at the end of the day, Joe or Jane Citizen will relate to them.

Rosie Winterton: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Amess. As most of the speakers have indicated, the economic prosperity boards address some of the points raised earlier in the debate. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon talked about local authorities ability to have a sub-regional economic structure, and the economic prosperity boards provide for that approach.
I want to stress two things. First, the EPBs and combined authorities will be completely voluntary for all councils. We believe that they should be formed only where there is a serious commitment to joint working at the sub-regional level. There has to be that commitment or they will not be particularly effective.

David Curry: There is just one point of detail that I would like clarified. I read carefully the policy document on the options for sub-regional co-operation, which is pretty clear. The only area about which I had some doubt was that although the local authorities concerned have got to apply to join, non-unitary district councils do not have to subscribe, and I got the impression that they could be dragooned in. They may be party to the application, but something could go ahead even without the application of the simplest of district councils.

Rosie Winterton: I suspect that that provision was actually amended in the Lords, and that the original thinking was that if a county council covered an area, that would do. However, in the Lords it was pointed out that there could be a problem with that, so an amendment was made to deal with it.

David Curry: I merely observe that when their lordships come from local government, by and large they come almost exclusively from the upper tier.

Rosie Winterton: Obviously, on this occasion they have been addressing the problems of the unitary district councils. The Bill sets out that no local authority will be able to be part of the scheme for the establishment of an EPB unless it is involved in the preparation of the scheme for the new body, or consents to being part of it. Also, the Secretary of State will have to consult every authority that will be part of the EPB before it can be set up.
The EPBs are extremely important bodies. I am glad to see there has been an element of consensus about the fact that they can play a valuable part in the sub-regional structure, and I hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

Constitution

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goodman: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Amess. It has been useful to have a brief Second Reading-type excursion from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon this morning. In a less elevated vein, before we rose on Tuesday evening, I attempted to take the same kind of tour in relation to the confusion of the architecture that we now see gradually revealed in the Bill. I shall not attempt to repeat the Second Reading observations on the clause, but I want to send a signal to the Minister about most of the remainder of the clauses in this part of the Bill. As I observed on Tuesday, they give considerable powers to the Secretary of State.
For example, under the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to decide membership, voting powers, executive arrangements and so forth. I am fascinated by paragraph (f) of subsection (4), which refers to the
disapplication of section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (duty to allocate seats to political groups).
That suggests either that the paragraph would disapply a duty to ensure political balance, or vice versa. I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us on that point.
In summary, on most of the clausesI shall have something more to say about one particular clausewe wish the Minister to persuade the Committee that the Secretary of States powers will be exercised responsibly and not in an onerous way. Who knows? The economic prosperity boards might in due course have the opportunity to take over more powers and become bottom-up bodies with real power and authority, rather than pieces of a confusing jigsaw, under what we hope is the forthcoming Conservative Government.

Daniel Rogerson: It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Amess. As the hon. Member for Wycombe said, we are effectively discussing the principles behind EPBs and how they will interact with the other arrangements. I agree entirely that although those of us on this side of the Committee have sought to use Divisions to indicate in detail our disapproval of certain aspects of the Bill, a key principle is at stake here. Is the case being made successfully for EPBs alongside the other arrangements we have discussed? I have explained that my party would prefer regions that make more sense to people, which might make EPBs unnecessary. Groups of local authorities coming together to form regions with RDAs that match those boundaries would be a better process, although as the Minister kindly pointed out, that would take some time.
With that in mind, we tabled a series of amendments, which of course were unselectable, calling for Divisions on individual clauses. Whether EPBs will make a useful contribution and whether they will cut across the work of regional bodies remains to be seen, but we look forward to hearing more from the Minister about that as we move through this part of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Wycombe discussed subsection (4)(f). I must confess that I had not picked up on that point, and I am glad that he raised it as it is a serious one that deals with an established practice that is a strength of local government. Of course, my party would like a slightly different electoral system, such as the one that they now have in Scotland, to allow local authorities to reflect the popular vote even more closely. However, even with our present system, it is important that all political groups and all views have the option to be represented in bodies formed. I have concerns about leaders boards from that point of view also. We must be careful in considering the EPBs.

Rosie Winterton: I will address the issue of the Secretary of States role first. The Opposition document Control Shift, as the hon. Member for Wycombe and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, proposes a similar structure, and it also says that the Secretary of State would be able to grant it. There are important reasons for that, because it is about making sure that all local authorities have been properly involved in drawing up a scheme, that there is the ability to influence it and, therefore, that they have in a sense signed up for itthat the structure will work. That is why there is the ability to refer back to the Secretary of State, in a sense, for endorsement. It is also clear, as I said before, that we expect EPBs and combined authorities to be voluntary for local authorities. It is not about a local authority having to have one; it is about local authorities coming forward and saying, We believe that this would be beneficial.
On the point made about subsection (4)(f), political balance provisions that apply to local authorities will apply to EPBs; that is covered in schedule 6. However, those provisions do not apply to executives of local authorities, which are designed to be cabinet-type structures, so we have similarly provided for EPBs to operate with an executive that they choose. I hope that that is a helpful clarification and that the Committee will agree to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Exercise of local authority functions

Daniel Rogerson: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I seek your guidance, but I assume that an amendment can be moved by any Committee member.

David Amess: I discussed that with the Clerk. There appears to be a number of amendments tabled by people who are not serving on the Committee, but as those amendments have been selected it is quite in order if Committee members wish to speak to them and it is a matter for them if they actually want to move them.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 88, page 60, line 34, leave out from to to end of line 35 and insert
(a) promoting the sustainable economic development and regeneration of its area, and
(b) contributing to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change..
The amendment is in line with a debate that we had about an earlier amendment, which I think was tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). That sought to strengthen the Bills wording regarding sustainable development. We were seeking to press a power, or duty, on the responsible regional authority, the RDA and the leaders board in their development of a regional strategy. If we are to have economic prosperity boards carrying out similar work on economic development in their areas, the same principle applies and we would feel more comfortable if a more explicit duty were placed upon them to carry out sustainable economic development.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment contains the phrase:
contributing to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
The Minister said in an earlier debate that she felt the point was coveredthat the Secretary of State could issue general guidance and that that guidance would, no doubt, be in accord with meeting those aims. However, given that the Bill establishes these bodies, it would be good if those key duties were imposed from the outset for any such bodies that come into existence.

Rosie Winterton: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on that point. All members of the Committee will doubtless agree that it would be entirely counter-productive to the long-term well-being of the sub-region for economic development, in that context, to mean anything other than sustainable economic developmentin other words, development that is within environmental limits and that enhances environmental and social welfare in the area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our statutory guidance will make it clear that that is precisely what we mean. I hope that reassures him and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Rogerson: I thank the Minister for that. Although we are attempting to make some progressI will behave myself, as I said I would, when it comes to not repeating votes on general principlesthis is an important matter. There is a great deal of feeling outside this place that not enough emphasis is placed on this issue. As the title of the boards suggests, they are about economic prosperity. That is important, and I hope they will make a significant contribution to that duty. However, other important considerations also need to be borne in mind, among which this matter is perhaps paramount, so I would like to divide the Committee on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goodman: Given that the Minister did not rise to her feet to introduce the clause, I thought I would raise a point put to the Committee by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. In a submission that I and other Members of the Committee have received, it argues that clause 88 will, as it makes clear, allow functions to be passed to EPBs. The CPRE wrote:
We do not believe that planning powers should be passed to the EPBs. The planning system should not, and cannot, be focused solely on delivering economic growth.
In arguing that the planning system cannot be solely concentrated on delivering economic growth, I am sure the CPRE is right, but I am not sure whether the Opposition agree entirely with the CPRE. If local authorities voluntarily wish to work together on planning, they should be allowed to do so. I do not entirely follow the CPREs argument in that respect. Having said that, I ask the Minister to say what functions an EPB can gather to itself, because I think the Committee would find that useful.

Rosie Winterton: I hope that I can give some assurance to the hon. Gentleman. It is up to local authorities to set out the functions that they wish to pass to an EPB across their area. They may decide that their EPB should play a part in spatial planning, most likely through co-operation in the production of regional development frameworks. It is very unlikely that local authorities would propose ceding power to make particular planning decisions to an EPB, or that the Secretary of State would agree to such an arrangement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are clear about wanting the link between planning decisions and direct local democratic accountability to be maintained.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 89 to 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100

Combined authorities and their areas

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goodman: This begins a different section of this part of the Bill, in that it introduces combined authorities that are not EPBs, as hon. Members can see from the italic print at the top of clause 100. I thought it worth briefly sketching out our general view and giving the Minister notice of any issues that are likely to arise.
We see no difficulty with combined authorities dealing with transport in principle. The concern that arose in the Lords was the prospect of congestion charges or other such charges being imposed on local authority areas without the consent of their voters. Looking ahead to a later clauseI will not go into it in detailit seems that that is covered in clause 106, but it would be useful if the Minister gave some assurances on that.
From my reading of clause 100, it seems that a combined authority and an EPB must be distinct, and perhaps the Minister will say something about that. Subsection (5)(b) states that no part of the area may form part of
the area of an EPB.
If I am reading the Bill correctly, the Departments intention is that a combined transport authority and EPB will be separate entities, and the Committee will be curious to know why.

Rosie Winterton: I hope that I can give some reassurance on congestion charging. The powers and functions of integrated transport authorities are set out in the Local Transport Act 2008. The Bill will not alter the functions available to ITAs but merely allow them to be brought together with local authority economic development functions in a single combined authority. The Bill will not create any new transport functions for sub-regional bodies when such functions could not already be given to ITAs.
On the hon. Gentlemans point, combined authorities can act in the same way as EPBs and can take on the same functions. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to have two bodies for the same area. Subsection (5) states:
Condition D is that no part of the area forms part of...the area of another combined authority.
The provision is intended to ensure that the boundaries are fairly clear and that there are not all kinds of crossovers. I hope that that is reassuring.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 101 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Multi-area agreements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goodman: We see no difficulty with multi-area agreements, which are a good thing in principle. In the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield needed to be convinced that this clause and the following clauses would not simply impose improvement targets on those who signed up to multi-area agreements. The note that I have in my almost illegible handwriting says, See Andrews reassurances, which suggests that Baroness Andrews was able to give my noble Friend the reassurances that he sought. Again, however, it would be useful to the Committee if the Minister spelt out some reassurances.

Julia Goldsworthy: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this lovely weather, Mr. Amess.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there is genuine agreement that multi-area agreements are a good thing. Once again, however, we return to the question of whether it is necessary to make provision for them in primary legislation. Considerable powers are reserved to the Secretary of State in subsequent clauses on multi-area agreements, and we should question whether that is necessary to enable local authorities to work together to achieve improvements in public services in their areas.
I may refer to this later, but in an interview in yesterdays Guardian, the new Secretary of State referred to exploring the possibility of new powers, with a legally enforceable charter under which local authorities would have the right to refuse to have the Secretary of States views imposed on them. Most of the Bill could fall into the category where local authorities might say, Actually, we think that this is an imposition of your powers, which is completely unnecessary. They would then have the opportunity to refuse to implement it.

Daniel Rogerson: It strikes me that we would rather the Secretary of State had virtually no control over issues that really are for decision by local government. With regard to the paper that has been mentioned a few times, it is fair to say that we prefer control delete to Control Shift.

Julia Goldsworthy: That was an amusing intervention from my hon. Friend. It is clear that, while we have been debating the Bill, there have been considerable changesnot only to the Secretary of State responsible for such matters, but to Ministers. I congratulate the new Exchequer Secretary to the TreasuryI understand that she has been moved in the past 24 hours. I wonder whether Ministers, Departments and their policies are moving beyond that paper. Will the Minister responsible respond to that? More generally, how do the powers that the Secretary of State mentioned in the newspaper yesterday relate to multi-area agreements?

Rosie Winterton: Unfortunately, I have not yet had time to read the article that the hon. Lady refers to, but I can reassure the Committee, because there is a recognition that local authorities have asked for more robust multi-area agreements so that duties are placed on partner authorities. The vivid illustration that I asked for yesterday when discussing the matter with officials was raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. His point was that if there is a desire in North Yorkshire for the authorities to come togetherperhaps in a multi-area agreementthere may be a need to sign up the regional development agency. The idea was that, within that multi-area agreement, duties would need to be fulfilled. Local authorities consider that that gives more reassurance, when putting together plans for future economic development, that they have an agreement that needs to be fulfilled by the various different bodies.
I should like to offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and the hon. Member for Wycombe. This is not about imposing targetsevery authority or partner to whom a target relates must agree to that target for it to apply to them. We are trying to achieve a consensus about working together, while responding to the points that local authorities have made about proper backing through duties being appropriate for them. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Peter Lilley: I want to make a pedantic point. Since I do not understand any of this new jargon, I have tried to look it up to see what it means and to find out what a multi-area agreement is. Clause 134 says that a
multi-area agreement has the meaning given by section 118(2).
I went back to the first mention of it, to find that the provision says that a multi-area agreement is a document that covers an area and specifies targets. It does not say who it is an agreement between. It could be an agreement between you and me, Mr. Amess. I take it that it is meant to be an agreement between local authorities, although the Bill does not say so.

Rosie Winterton: Yes it does.

Peter Lilley: Wherein clause 118(2)?

Rosie Winterton: In clause 118(2)(a).

Peter Lilley: No, clause 118(2)(a) says, covers an area. We could make an agreement about Essex or Hertfordshireor something like that, but that is the area that we coverand we could set targets, although they would not apply unless the person to whom they should apply agreed, as a later clause says. The Bill should spell out the sort of people between whom such agreements should be made. The drafting is sloppy.

Nick Raynsford: It might help if I provide the Committee with a little background to the evolution of the local area agreement concept, which preceded multi-area agreements and had a similar objective. They evolved in discussions between the Local Government Association and the Department for Communities and Local Government, which then had a different name.
The agreements were concerned with providing maximum flexibility to local authorities and their local partners in developing targets for improving peoples living standards, whether in economic, environmental or social well-being terms. The obvious weakness of that mode, which nevertheless was welcomed by all concerned, was that it applied only to one area, and the whole purpose of multi-area agreements is to apply the same flexibility to a wider area, thus embracing a number of different authorities.
On Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that, in my borough of Greenwich, we are in discussion with the four other neighbouring Olympic authorities to reach a multi-area agreement with the objective of deliveringfor the people of Greenwich, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Hackneyimproved outputs in relation to some of the great priorities facing those areas. In particular, it would improve employment prospects, tackle problems of joblessness and improve housing conditions. It would also bring improvements to the public realm.
Those are admirable objectives, but they embrace a huge number of possible options and partners. The negotiations on the local area agreementor multi-area agreement, in the case of the five Olympic boroughsare progressing, but the process is not easy; it is complex and involves many potential players. That might explain why it is not possible to be too prescriptive in legislation about the precise nature of the agreements and partners. That could prove restrictive.
Much of the debate in Committee has been about how far local government should enjoy greater flexibility and freedom to develop objectives that local authorities think appropriate, and the multi-area agreement concept will make a major contribution to that. I would therefore counsel the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden not to seek too tight a definition. That might work against the objective of allowing flexibility for local authorities and their partners to evolve appropriate multi-area agreements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

Local authorities

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 158, in clause 119, page 74, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert parish councils.
The first part of the amendment would delete the reference to economic prosperity boards, which is in line with other amendments that we tabled, but they were not selected. As we have discussed already, we wanted to delete the whole concept from the Bill, but we seem to have moved on and acknowledged that EPBs might have a role to offer, so we will not seek to push the amendment to a vote.
The amendment would also insert parish councils into the clause, although the Minister might feel that this is not the appropriate clauseperhaps they could be dealt with under partner authorities. Nevertheless, we have debated the evolving nature of parish councils, particularly in areas that now have unitary councils. That is a situation with which I am now more familiar. Larger parish councils in places such as Wiltshire and Shropshire are, in consultation with those authorities, considering taking on further roles and perhaps professionalising what they have done hitherto. As they have a developing role, I should like to see somewhere in this concept of multi-area agreements provision for parish councils to be able to contribute.
Many parish councils may not yet be ready for such a concept, but with the equality status process moving forward, the aspirations of parish councilsparticularly the larger onesare changing. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was right to point out that for many smaller parish councils, such a suggestion will not be appropriate.

Julia Goldsworthy: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, especially given the experiences of preparing for local government reorganisation in Cornwall, where it is very difficult for the parish councils to have an input even though they may be taking on a greater role. Even in the case of smaller parish councils, is it not the case that if they are considering working together it may be appropriate for them to be considered? I am talking about another layer of multi-area agreement.

Daniel Rogerson: Multi-parish agreement.

Julia Goldsworthy: Indeed. There could be some benefit for them from working with other authorities.

Daniel Rogerson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure that that is the process. It may be that some of that is formalised and we will see smaller parish councils coming together to form larger parish councils. Such a process is under way in some areas. That can happen in consultation with the local authority and does not need the Secretary of States involvement. That is an issue that has been devolved, and that we welcome.
We are talking about parish councils, which, two reorganisations ago, were urban districts or boroughs and were building housing and carrying out all sorts of functions. There is a desire to be flexible and consider delivering services at the most appropriate local level. What I want from the Minister is some guidance about how she intends to involve parish councils in this processwhether it will be listed under local authorities under clause 119 or under partner authorities next time. I have a feeling that partner authorities does not quite cover it, because they tend to be other forms of bodies rather than elected organisations.

Stewart Jackson: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees any implication for the precepting process in his proposal for the effective amalgamation of parish councils in multi-area agreements?

Daniel Rogerson: I served in a borough council that was part-parished and part-unparished, and there was always conflict. The parished areas felt that some services were not being provided for them directly, and they would effectively say, Well, you can put it on the precept, cant you? Such an attitude would be a concern. None the less, it would be a shame if there were no method for the parish councils to be involved in the process. As I said, this is a probing amendment, and I want some thoughts from the Government about how these significant local bodies can be involved.

Rosie Winterton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that parish councils play an extremely important role in supporting their local communities. That is why in December we extended the well-being power to certain parish and town councils. The real problem is that there is a large number of parish councilsmore than 8,000and it is not appropriate to add them to the list of MAAs. It would inevitably make the process much more complicated. None the less, I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that in preparing a draft MAA, the responsible authority has to consult such other persons as it considers appropriate. Therefore, if it was appropriate within an area to consult a parish council, then we would expect the local authorities to do so.

Daniel Rogerson: I am slightly disappointed by that response. I accept that it would be inappropriate for all 8,000 parishesit is a growing number, because parishes are being formed in urban areasautomatically to be involved in multi-area agreements. The whole point of multi-area agreements, as the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, is their flexibility. If we are seeking a process that allows involvement for different bodies, as appropriate, I think that it is a shame that there is no flexibility. For example, in my area, Newquay town council covers an area containing about 20,000 people.

David Curry: I do not know whether it is the case in the hon. Gentlemans part of the world, but in my part of the world a significant number of the elected members of the bigger parish councils also sit on the district council or even the county council.

Daniel Rogerson: That is sometimes the case, but it is not universal; it is perhaps an accident, happy or otherwise. If we are looking to allow flexibility, we could not necessarily count on that, but the different bodies have different roles. If people are elected to two authorities they must be careful to deal with the issues appropriate to each authority.
I saying not that all parish councils must be involved, but that if they want to be involved and if the other partners in that multi-area agreement think it appropriate, there is a facility for them to become involved. They could take a more direct role, not simply being consultees but delivering services or providing facilities for services to be delivered, as many town parish councils have significant property available to them.
I would welcome it if the Minister were prepared to consider the matter again. It would be useful to know whether the Government were tempted. If not, it will send the message to parish councils that once again they are not seen as being sufficiently involved. That would be a shame, as their role is developing.

Rosie Winterton: The Liberal Democrats believe that the provision is too prescriptive and that we are telling everybody what to do, but in this instance we are saying that is it up to the responsible authorities to use their judgment and to allow consultation. For the reasons that I gave earlier, I believe that we have the balance right.

Daniel Rogerson: The Minister is seeking to cloud the issue by talking about being prescriptive. I have said that the amendment would not compel anyone to be involved, but merely allow them to become involved in future. It is not appropriate to press the matter to a Division, but we may return to the question at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

Partner authorities

Julia Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendment 159, in clause 120, page 75, line 18, leave out from first state to end of line 28.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 160, in clause 120, page 75, line 31, leave out from nature to end of line 38.

Julia Goldsworthy: We have had an interesting discussion about what constitutes a local authority. We now move on to discuss what constitutes a partner authority. The amendments, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, relate to the role of the Secretary of State as a partner authority under subsection (4)(j), and the Secretary of States ability to add or remove organisations that may constitute a partner authority under subsection (5). The amendments seek to do two things.
Subsection (4) specifies a number of persons or organisations that are defined as partner authorities under subsection (1), but none of those listed in subsection (4) are directly democratically accountable except the Secretary of State. Subsection (1)(a) clearly states that a partner authority is
any person...where the whole or any part of the area for which the person acts or is established coincides with or falls within that area.
However, subsection (4)(j) specifies only limited areas in which the Secretary of State is considered to be a partner authority in relation to multi-area agreements.
Our argument is that if the Secretary of State is to be a partner authority, he or she should be a partner authority in other respects, not only in those limited ones. I realise that it is not the Secretary of State in person, but anyone who represents that office. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify the matter, but if the Secretary of State is to be a partner authority it should not be confined or limited as set out in subsection (4).
In subsection (5), we can see that the list in the previous subsection might not be exhaustive, and that there might be some justification for extending it. We are concerned that subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State the power to include or exclude whoever he or she wants, whenever he or she wants. Although it might be appropriate to add bodies, we would not want the Secretary of State to be able to remove bodies just as easily. The two amendments, therefore, would confine and restrict the significant power of the Secretary of State. There is a more level playing field if everyone has equal roles and responsibilities in working together in a multi-area agreement.

Rosie Winterton: Clause 120 lists the partner authorities for the purposes of MAAs with duties. That list is the same as the list of partner authorities for local area agreements set out in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Heath Act 2007. If, as has been requested by local government, we are going to put MAAs on a similar statutory footing to LAAs, it is obviously appropriate that the lists of partners are consistent. Amendment 159 would remove reference to the functions of the Secretary of State that are carried out by Jobcentre Plus, the Highways Agency and the probation service. That would have the effect of making the Secretary of State a partner authority for all purposes. I think that that relates to some previous amendments, as perhaps the hon. Lady has said, which were tabled out of a concern about the statutory role of the Secretary of State in the approval of MAAs. There is, therefore, a problem with the amendment.
Amendment 160 would prevent the Secretary of State from removing bodies from the list of partner authorities. The problem with that is that it would prevent the Secretary of State from making changes to take account of changes in the machinery of government, and from keeping the list up to date. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Julia Goldsworthy: Although I do not intend to press the amendments, I am not entirely sure whether the Minister has answered all the questions that the amendments raise. She seems perfectly happy for the responsibilities of all the other authorities listed in subsection (4) to be covered by the definition in subsection (1):
the whole or any part of the area for which the person acts or is established coincides with or falls within that area.
If that definition of the extent of responsibilities is good enough for every other body listed in subsection (4), why is it not good enough for the Secretary of State? Why is it not clear enough? I do not think that the Minister has answered that question.
The issue of the ability to amend the list goes back to the Ministers assumption that the Government will always act in the best interests. Although I can, of course, envisage circumstances in which bodies are disbanded or new ones are created and the list needs to be amended, subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to not only remove authorities that no longer exist but to remove authorities that it might not be convenient or expedient to have on the list. I wonder why the list cannot simply be amended by regulation, so that there is an opportunity for scrutiny of what is on the list, rather than by order of the Secretary of State. I remain concerned about those two issues, but given what we have to get through today it might take too much time to press the amendments.

Rosie Winterton: To give one final reassurance, I must say that the power to remove bodies from the list is exercisable by order. It is subject to parliamentary control and must follow consultation. It cannot be used lightly, without coming back to Parliament.

Julia Goldsworthy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Lilley: The Committee will know that my worries come from the actions of a group of authorities. They could be operating under a multi-area agreement, and have predatory intentions outside their area that will affect another local authority. My two concerns might be relevant to the clause, but they arise from a lack of clarity under clause 118, which states that a multi-area agreement
specifies improvement targets for that area.
However, if the authorities are achieving improvements in, say, Luton, by building houses in north Hertfordshire, what happens then? Can the Minister, under the clause, require them to include north Herts in the multi-area agreement so that the local authority that is being impinged upon in the pursuit of a target, which does not relate to it but is the housing target for Luton and south Bedfordshire, will be included in the multi-area agreement?
In the rather sinister goings on between Luton and south Bedfordshire to specify an area for building in north Herts, a meeting took place involving Luton council, South Bedfordshire council, the Ministers Departmentbefore she was in officeand a private developer. A development agency can be a party to a multi-area agreement, but will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear beyond peradventure that a private developer cannot be part of the agreement or party to an authority or document seeking to improve Luton by building in Hertfordshire? All hon. Members can think of parallel circumstances that might affect their constituencies, and I should be grateful if the Minister responded to that point.

Rosie Winterton: Private developers would not be part of a multi-area agreement; which authorities can be part is set out clearly. The whole concept of a multi-area agreement is that different authorities sign up and agree to the targets. Local authorities have said to us that they want a similar process to local area agreements because that would mean a stronger statutory basis for operating the multi-area agreement.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Minister, who is endeavouring to be helpful and positive. Clause 118 states:
specifies improvement targets for that area,
rather than in that area. Given that the courts take into account what Ministers say, will she make it clear that this is meant to apply to targets for and in the area of the local authoritiesnot just for an areabut achieved by actions taking place outside the area?

Rosie Winterton: I would be extremely surprised if the targets not owned by local authorities in an area could somehow apply outside an area. I suspect that the drafting was carried out on legal advice.

Nick Raynsford: I rise merely to raise a speculative point that will create an almost impossible difficulty for the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. If the multi-area agreement was to produce a target for improving air quality, it would be completely impossible to define the way to achieve that target so that it related only to the area of the authorities making the agreement, because the very nature of the target would have wider implications. That is why it is not wise for us to be unduly prescriptive in seeking to define the role of a multi-area agreement. I hear exactly the right hon. Gentlemans point. Multi-area agreements will not necessarily be concerned solely with housing. They could be concerned with a number of other provisions, such as air quality, for which there would be an obvious intellectual difficulty in coming up with the formulation that he is pressing towards.

Rosie Winterton: On the north Herts scenario, I re-emphasise that north Herts would agree to a target only if it was happy with it. The target that it signs up to must apply to its functions; and it is not bound to any target if it does not sign up for it. I hope that that is helpful.

Peter Lilley: In fact, it undoes some of the good that the Minister was doing earlier. The point is not that north Herts has signed up to the Luton housing targeta target imposed on Luton and south Beds by central Government. They are trying to fulfil their target, for their area, by building outside the area. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich supposed that that could be a problem in respect of other functions. What if Greenwich were to try to improve the quality of air in Greenwichin my experience, of a high calibre alreadyby building a waste-disposal plant in someone elses constituency, so that all the fumes from the waste processes in Greenwich were disseminated in Bromley, say? Would that be within the powers established by the Bill for a multi-area agreement, in a case where Bromley is not part of that agreement?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

Proposal for multi-area agreement

Julia Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendment 161, in clause 121, page 76, line 10, leave out from may to end of line 12 and insert
notify the Secretary of State of their intention to establish a multi-area agreement..

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 162, in clause 121, page 76, line 19, leave out request and insert notification.
Amendment 163, in clause 121, page 76, line 20, leave out request and insert notification.
Amendment 164, in clause 121, page 76, line 24, leave out request and insert notification.
Amendment 165, in clause 122, page 76, line 27, leave out subsection (1).
Amendment 166, in clause 122, page 76, line 36, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 92, in clause 123, page 77, line 2, leave out from agreement to the in line 3.
Amendment 93, in clause 124, page 77, line 26, leave out Secretary of State approves and insert local authorities and partner authorities approve.
Amendment 94, in clause 124, page 77, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 95, in clause 124, page 77, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 96, in clause 125, page 77, line 35, leave out subsection (1).
Amendment 97, in clause 129, page 79, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).

Julia Goldsworthy: Although the amendments have been grouped with clause 121, they relate right the way through clauses 121 to 129. Considering them together is logical, because the next part of the Bill seeks to set out the mechanics of how multi-area agreements work: how they are initiated, how the proposals move forward, and how they are prepared, approved, submitted and revised.
In the Ministers earlier remarks on multi-area agreements, she spoke of local authorities demand that multi-area agreements be put on a statutory footing. However, what concerns we Liberal Democrats is not only that almost every stage of the progress of multi-area agreementstheir initiation, proposal, preparation, approval, revision and submissionis dependent on the Secretary of States approval, but that every stage could be initiated by direction of the Secretary of the State. It is difficult for the process to be purely bottom-up if, at every stage, the Secretary of State can direct a multi-area agreement to be revised, initiated or proposed. That concerns us greatly, because it could undermine what, according to the Minister, multi-area agreements are there to achieve, which is to allow local authorities to work together. They are not there to allow groups of local authorities to work together under the direction of the Secretary of State.
Our proposals would allow local authorities to notify the Secretary of State of their intention to put forward a multi-area agreement, rather saying to the Secretary of State that they would like to do so. The amendments put all the power firmly in the hands of the local authorities that will be delivering the multi-area agreements, rather than in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is the principle we are seeking to establish. We are trying to establish a clear, bottom-up process, rather than the top-down one that we fear is being perpetuated through these clauses.

David Curry: I am afraid that I am going to start to sound like an old Stalinist

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Never!

David Curry: Perhaps I used to be a young Stalinist.
In terms of aspiration, what the Liberal Democrats are doing is remarkable. In terms of practicality, I do not think a great deal of it. Frankly, multi-area agreements are often brokered by Government offices, which play a huge part in their development. The powers of the Secretary of State often give a sort of back-stop to the agreements for local authorities. I suspect that local authorities would not welcome a provision that cut them loose so dramatically from the Secretary of State, not least because he is a participator in multi-area agreements. I admire the optimism behind the proposals, but in the real world local authorities are not unhappy with such tutelage, and in many respects need it. The Secretary of State and his powers are part of multi-area agreements. Obviously, those agreements that are going to have a statutory powermulti-area agreements with attitudeneed the Secretary of State to be welded into this process. As always, the key is how the Secretary of State exercises the powers.
The history of multi-area agreements is not bad. A series of them have been signed in south Yorkshire and in Lancashire, for example. The representations I have received show that people are happy with the process and are quite optimistic. As I said, given that there are so many participantsincluding a significant number who are not directly democratically accountablethe big issue is how the citizen can find a way in and feel that their voice is being heard in the extraordinarily complex landscape we are developing.

Nick Raynsford: I cannot but observe that the right hon. Gentleman has said something with which I wholly concur. The hon. Member for Wycombe may wish to recall our debate last week, in which I was categorised not quite as a Stalinist, but as someone who advocates a little helpful hand on the tiller from Government to achieve results that local authorities might not achieve by themselves. I wholly concur with the right hon. Gentlemans comments, in which he advocated a little helpful hand on the tiller from central Government to assist local authorities. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe will reflect that, far from there being a major divide on this issue, the right hon. Gentlemans view is almost entirely in agreement with mine.

Rosie Winterton: Let me say just two things. The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon are exactly right.
I confirm that the Secretary of States power of direction is just a formal mechanism that acts as a trigger for the duty for local authorities and partner authorities to co-operate in determining the improvement targets to be set out in the draft agreement. The Secretary of State can issue the direction only if it is requested by the local authorities for the proposed area. The process is still voluntary at its inception. Local authorities do not have to go down the route of an MAA with duties if they do not want to. They can still choose a non-statutory MAA as an alternative. The process is entirely a response to local authorities wish to have this power. As I said, it is necessary to have a mechanism that involves the Secretary of State to trigger to the duties. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Minister has just said that the Secretary of States direction can come only following a request from local authorities, but the powers in these clauses presumably also allow the Secretary of State not to make a direction following a request. The Secretary of State says that the process is nothing but a formality and that these are the words that we need to ensure that what local authorities want will happen, but that formality perhaps gives an important and clear statement of who is in control.
We had some interesting contributions from what may described as the worshipful company of previous Local Government Ministers. That provides an interesting insight into what we have not had in the debatea contribution by former councillors. What we are seeing is the perspective of those who have been Ministersthey may also have been councillorsand who have signed the directions.
The Minister says that the process is a formality, but the amendments would say that the Secretary of State must be involved only on an equal footing. However, the powers that are being reserved are not equal, and there is ultimately a lot in the gift of the Secretary of State.
The fact that the hon. Member for Wycombe did not speak perhaps implies that, despite the language in Control Shift, his sympathies lie more with the contribution made by the former Minister. However, we are still very much control-alt-delete, rather than Control Shift. For that reason, I will press amendment 161.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Curry: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I just wish to point out that neither Whip was present in the room until very recently and that we have made astonishing progress in their absence. Perhaps the Government Whip might consider withdrawing to facilitate our continued progress.

David Amess: The right hon. Gentleman has not made a point of order, but he has amused us.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 122 to 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135

Requirement for construction contracts to be in writing

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stewart Jackson: The Committee may know that we tabled an amendment to clause 135, but, sadly, it was not selected. This and following clauses will amend the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996colloquially known as the construction Actto overhaul the aspects of the legislation that deal with cash flow, adjudication and unreasonable delays in payment.
On the face of it, clause 135 is quite straightforward, and this issue has had quite an airing in past years. To give them their due, the Government have tried to move on from the significant consultation that took place in respect of the 1996 Act to make the improvements outlined, beginning some years ago with the Latham review on unreasonable delays in payment and adjudication and the payment provisions arising from the Act. The matter has been taken forward by both the former Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Assembly and has been subject to two separate and exhaustive public consultations and a significant amount of lobbyingno doubt, for members of the Committee and before that.
Although our amendment to the clause has not been selected, I shall just make a simple point that bears repetition. The Construction Confederation has raised issues relating to the clause and makes this point:
It will undermine industry best practice of encouraging contracts to be in writing.
It will inevitably lead to the examination of who agreed what with whom, with each party making representations to the adjudicator.
It raises the question as to how such a procedure (which will inevitably require oral representation and examination during the course of an adjudication) can be incorporated within what is already the short statutory timescale for adjudication (usually two months).
The confederation makes this pertinent point:
Swift adjudication remains the most effective way to tackle non-payment. Introducing oral or part oral contracts within its scope will increase costs and delay the process.
The clause did not have a very significant outing in the other place, but I would like to ask the Exchequer Secretary about it. Incidentally, I was remiss in not congratulating her at the outset on her promotion. We are getting quite giddy at new Communities and Local Government Ministers on the magic roundabout that is Government reshuffles, but she had not been long in her role.

Paul Goodman: This is a helpful suggestion to the Government Whips: given the repeated helpful and learned interventions of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, perhaps he could fill any temporary vacancy by coming to the Ministers place.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend makes an astute observation. However, I am not sure that a soufflĂ(c) always rises twice.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One oclock.